Discussion 2022 Round 17: Teams & In Game Discussion

Are you Austin Powers with your trades?

  • Yes

    Votes: 22 37.9%

  • 5-7

    Votes: 23 39.7%

  • No

    Votes: 13 22.4%
  • Total voters
    58
Connoisseur

Connoisseur

Leadership Group
#947
Joined
3 Jul 2017
Messages
38,963
Likes
126,635
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
#947
jobeywatto said:
Oliver wasn't my highest scoring player last round. You don't need to miss out on captaining your highest scoring player to still lose big.

And I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Neale would beat or at the very least equal 124. His average is higher than that and his record vs. Essendon is favourable. Got unlucky that we used a tagger for the 2nd time in a decade today. Was a line ball decision and can't really fault people going either way.
Click to expand...
The question was rhetorical and making light of those that seem to believe in the notion.

Depends on the varying interpretations of “big” or “burn”. Those coaches that captained P Cripps in RD4, then yes, compared to those who banked a 130 odd to miss out on 170 odd, then not so much. The fixturing was ideal to VC Oliver as long as coaches had a fallback option that they were confident in. Oliver continuing his form against the Crows was not guaranteed but a possibility and those that decided to opt for a consistent vice captain that could fall within the 120-135 range should have been well aware of this possible predicament and thus decided it was a risk they were not willing to take.

Not unreasonable but too often coaches expect players to receive an automatic score without considering the possible in game situations such as decreased minutes, different roles, etc given the circumstances.

If you are not confident on Player X scoring at least the score of your vice captain then is it worth it and what is your minimum acceptable score (eg 15-20 more than the VC)?

jobeywatto said:
You have to draw the line somewhere, right? Whether it's 125 or 120 or whatever. You aren't going to lock in a VC score of 100 just because it's a guaranteed 100. Everyone has full teams now with multiple premium mids averaging over 120. It's not unreasonable to want more than 125 from your captain at this point of the season and to take the risk if your VC doesn't hit that.
Click to expand...
Up to the individual and I was making light of the arbitrary cut o***. An extra 3-6 points (a tackle, a mark, a possession, etc) and there would have been a lot more coaches not taking the Oliver score on. I don’t see the importance of the 100 as we all know next to no one will be banking a score in that range. It is not unreasonable but the more you take those “middling scores” on, the more it will balance out over time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top